Share this story

Archaeologists excavated part of the old city center of Yaroslavl, Russia, between 2005 and 2010 as part of an effort to restore its cathedral. During the digs, they discovered nine medieval mass graves holding the remains of at least 300 people, dating from the sack of the city by Mongols. It took another several years for their bones, the ancient DNA preserved within them, and some centuries-old blowfly larvae, to reveal a family tragedy set against the wider backdrop of Mongol expansion.

Fire and bodies lying in the snow

In the first half of the 1200s, Mongol leader Batu Khan (the grandson of Genghis Khan) conquered parts of modern-day Russia, Eastern Europe, and the Caucasus, adding them to what became known as the Golden Horde. He swept westward with an army of 130,000 soldiers, and for the cities in his path, the only options were surrender or slaughter. Smolensk opted to surrender and pay tribute to the Khanate, but 18 other cities—including Moscow and the capital of the principality that, at the time, ruled Yaroslavl—fell to fire and the sword.

The Mongol army reached Yaroslavl in February 1238. Many of the people buried in the mass graves afterward had clearly died violently; their bones carried the marks of stabbing, cutting, and blunt trauma. Some of the bones also showed signs of having been burned, probably in the fire that accompanied the attack, according to historical documents and archaeological evidence. Several of the graves had been the basements of houses and outbuildings; after the buildings burned down in the fire, the survivors or the conquerors found the exposed basements convenient places to dispose of the dead.

On the grounds of a medieval estate in the center of town, near the cathedral, someone went to the trouble to dig a pit for the dead. But the fifteen people buried in the shallow pit lay in a variety of poses, suggesting that they had been dumped in unceremoniously. The blowfly larvae found mingled with the bones might explain that hasty treatment: the bodies would have been in the smelliest stages of decomposition when burial finally happened.

The larvae remained in remarkably good condition, even after 800 years of burial. Entomologists identified the exact blowfly species—and calculated that around Yaroslavl, the average daily temperatures the larvae would need came in late May or early June.

“These people were killed, and their bodies remained lying in the snow for a fairly long time. In April or May, flies started to multiply on the remains, and in late May or early June, they were buried in a pit on the homestead, which is where they probably had lived,” said archaeologist Asya Engovatova of the Russian Academy of Sciences. By then, Batu Khan and his army were already marching through Crimea.

A family tragedy worthy of Dostoyevsky

Several of the people buried in the pit had much more tooth decay than the rest of the Yaroslavl dead, which actually suggests that they were pretty well-off. Tooth decay usually suggests a diet rich in sugar (or at least soft, high-carbohydrate foods). In the Middle Ages, only the wealthy would have had access to that much sugar. And artifacts found where the house once stood suggest that the estate had been relatively wealthy until it burned down during the Mongol attack. Engovatova says it’s reasonable to think that the people buried in the middle of the estate lived—and died—there.

Some clues in the bones suggested that a number of the people in the mass grave may have been related. Several of the skeletons shared traits that could have been hereditary, such as spina bifida and a cranial suture (one of the joints between bones in the skull) that stayed open long after the age when it usually fuses shut.

To test that idea, geneticists Kharis Mustafin and Irina Alborova of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology sampled ancient DNA material from eight skeletons. Three of them shared the same mitochondrial genome, which is passed down from mother to child. Anthropologists say the three relatives were a woman, probably at least 55 years old when she died; a woman somewhere between 30 and 40 years old; and a young man about 20 years old.

The DNA analysis also helped calculate how closely the people were related; Engovatova and her colleagues say the most likely scenario is that the three people represent a grandmother, her daughter, and her grandson. Another person, buried in a nearby grave, came from the same maternal lineage. Engovatova and her colleagues presented their findings at a recent international anthropology conference in Moscow.

“In addition to recreating the overall picture of the fall of the city in 1238, we now see the tragedy of one family,” said Engovatova. "What’s not known, of course, is who buried them: a relative, a neighbor, or a conqueror?"

Yaroslavl rebuilt after the fire as it had done after numerous other fires in its history; it was a city made mostly of wood in a time when people relied on fire for cooking and heating. The principality to which the town belonged would spend the next 250 years as a vassal state to the Golden Horde but not without more conflict and death. Batu Khan’s cousin, Mongke Khan, swept through the region again in 1257, followed by the Black Death in 1278, more Mongol attacks in 1293 and 1322, and another wave of Black Death in 1364.

I don't really have much to add but wanted to upvote the article! Interesting read, and every time I read about Mongol invasions, it reminds me of my own family history where my grandfather's records of our ancestors' burial grounds shift in line with Mongol invasions, presumably to avoid them (ultimately in vain).

Man that's rough. First you get invaded by the mongols, and then later the mongols got invaded by the mongols...

To be precise the 1332 attack was by the principality of Moscow acting under the Khan of the Golden Horde's orders. The Golden Horde's power was based on various Russian principalities paying tribute. Not paying up or enough tribute caused visits by Golden Horde's forces or proxy forces.

Seems the Mongols didn't get the memo about 'never start a land war in Asia'

The Mongols where what terror looked like to Asians in the age of the Golden Horde. Not only they where extremely successful on their expansive military operations (with some exceptions like the Japan invasion), but also completely ruthless.

Run - do not walk - to www.dancarlin.com and download the series, Hardcore History 43-47 - Wrath of the Khans. It’s a brilliantly fascinating (and at times grisly) historical audio account of the rise and fall of the Khan dynasty. Dan Carlin is a terrific researcher and narrator; this series is easily worth $9.99.

Disclaimer: I have no interest or affiliation with Dan Carlin or Hardcore History. I’m just a fan.

It's horrifying to contemplate the cruelty of many conquering groups throughout history. War is bad enough, but I can understand how different groups can have conflicting viewpoints and goals to the point of fighting a war. Often there is no clear "right" side where the soldiers and their leaders are "good" and the enemy is "bad."

It's horrifying to contemplate the cruelty of many conquering groups throughout history. War is bad enough, but I can understand how different groups can have conflicting viewpoints and goals to the point of fighting a war. Often there is no clear "right" side where the soldiers and their leaders are "good" and the enemy is "bad."

Run - do not walk - to http://www.dancarlin.com and download the series, Hardcore History 43-47 - Wrath of the Khans. It’s a brilliantly fascinating (and at times grisly) historical audio account of the rise and fall of the Khan dynasty. Dan Carlin is a terrific researcher and narrator; this series is easily worth $9.99.

Disclaimer: I have no interest or affiliation with Dan Carlin or Hardcore History. I’m just a fan.

Everything Dan Carlin does is great. I've already listened to all of it twice. Maybe it's time for round number three!

It's horrifying to contemplate the cruelty of many conquering groups throughout history. War is bad enough, but I can understand how different groups can have conflicting viewpoints and goals to the point of fighting a war. Often there is no clear "right" side where the soldiers and their leaders are "good" and the enemy is "bad."

Run - do not walk - to http://www.dancarlin.com and download the series, Hardcore History 43-47 - Wrath of the Khans. It’s a brilliantly fascinating (and at times grisly) historical audio account of the rise and fall of the Khan dynasty. Dan Carlin is a terrific researcher and narrator; this series is easily worth $9.99.

Disclaimer: I have no interest or affiliation with Dan Carlin or Hardcore History. I’m just a fan.

Everything Dan Carlin does is great. I've already listened to all of it twice. Maybe it's time for round number three!

Edit: A lot of his work is on Youtube for free.

He has like 4 hr long podcasts. That’ll take a lot of listens to sink in, because 2 isn’t enough. His WW1 series, Blueprint for Armageddon, is really terrific too.

Man that's rough. First you get invaded by the mongols, and then later the mongols got invaded by the mongols...

To be precise the 1332 attack was by the principality of Moscow acting under the Khan of the Golden Horde's orders. The Golden Horde's power was based on various Russian principalities paying tribute. Not paying up or enough tribute caused visits by Golden Horde's forces or proxy forces.

One of the things that enabled the Mongols to do what they did it that logistics weren't really an issue. They didn't have non combatants traveling with them, everyone was on horse with multiple mounts, they didn't bring anything an individual soldier couldn't carry, and they stayed in the open and hunted, foraged, slaughtered their animals, and looted.

This is one of the reasons that this went rarely without looting (even if you surrender) and also the reason that the momentum carried them on for a good while: They had only what they could take from others and once they had eaten and looted everything they continued on to the next settlement. This was not really an army with logistics. They needed to keep going to keep going.

It's horrifying to contemplate the cruelty of many conquering groups throughout history. War is bad enough, but I can understand how different groups can have conflicting viewpoints and goals to the point of fighting a war. Often there is no clear "right" side where the soldiers and their leaders are "good" and the enemy is "bad."

It's horrifying to contemplate the cruelty of many conquering groups throughout history. War is bad enough, but I can understand how different groups can have conflicting viewpoints and goals to the point of fighting a war. Often there is no clear "right" side where the soldiers and their leaders are "good" and the enemy is "bad."

The steppes of Asia has a long history of fierce horsemen taking what they wish and leaving a wasteland behind as they moved on. The Huns and Scythians as well as the Mongols come to mind.

And before them, the Yamnaya probably did the same thing spreading east and west while also bringing thier Indo-European language with then.

Perhaps. Were the Yamnaya spreading by looting and tribute taking or did they just follow their herds to better pasture land as a nomadic existance? They originated on the steppes, yes, but is there evidence they just took what they wanted from everyone in their way?

One of the things that enabled the Mongols to do what they did it that logistics weren't really an issue. They didn't have non combatants traveling with them, everyone was on horse with multiple mounts, they didn't bring anything an individual soldier couldn't carry, and they stayed in the open and hunted, foraged, slaughtered their animals, and looted.

I'd imagine a sudden influx of 130,000 people passing through did some serious damage to the local wildlife just to feed them and their animals though...I wonder if any of the impacts would still show up today, allowing historians to map out their exact paths.

One of the things that enabled the Mongols to do what they did it that logistics weren't really an issue. They didn't have non combatants traveling with them, everyone was on horse with multiple mounts, they didn't bring anything an individual soldier couldn't carry, and they stayed in the open and hunted, foraged, slaughtered their animals, and looted.

Citation? I understood them to be not just an army but a whole mobile society, but that is just what my memory says. Perhaps one of our more specialized readers could weigh in.

One of the things that enabled the Mongols to do what they did it that logistics weren't really an issue. They didn't have non combatants traveling with them, everyone was on horse with multiple mounts, they didn't bring anything an individual soldier couldn't carry, and they stayed in the open and hunted, foraged, slaughtered their animals, and looted.

Citation? I understood them to be not just an army but a whole mobile society, but that is just what my memory says. Perhaps one of our more specialized readers could weigh in.

The Mongol army was based on each soldier with 3-5 horses carrying enough preserved meat to feed himself for a month at a time and in addition, drinking mare's milk as source of food. Various specialists were added to conduct siege warfare, usually but not limited to Chinese experts. The biggest problem for the Mongol armies was lack of forage for their horses. Mongol society, as a whole, was mobile but the whole society did not go to war, similar to the Lakota in North America.

Wow It would take a huge amount of land to keep some 750,000 horses in graze and water!

The Mongol steppe horse is about a pony sized animal and is built for endurance rather than out and out speed. An equivalent number of arab horses would require far greater grazing. Ultimately Mongol success was limited to areas where there was sufficient grazing. The Golden horde, on the Russian steppes, lasted far longer than the Middle Eastern Ilkhanate. The Mongols only conquered the southern Song Chinese Dynasty with the help of Song defections. The Chinese soldiers gave the ability to operate outside the plains of Northern China.

The Mongols were a collection of various horse nomads that occasionally produced a leader that could unite them all. By their very nature they were self supporting logistically.

MMmm.. horsemeat again!

I had a very interesting course in Middle Chinese history once. When on the move they lived on the blood and milk of their mounts. Occasionally as they rode. They had to have supply trains, as they used siege engines, catapults and floating bridges when needed. Also, they had such vast numbers of horses, they could have companies mounted on 'all sorrel", all black, all "dapple", etc.

It's horrifying to contemplate the cruelty of many conquering groups throughout history. War is bad enough, but I can understand how different groups can have conflicting viewpoints and goals to the point of fighting a war. Often there is no clear "right" side where the soldiers and their leaders are "good" and the enemy is "bad."

The steppes of Asia has a long history of fierce horsemen taking what they wish and leaving a wasteland behind as they moved on. The Huns and Scythians as well as the Mongols come to mind.

And before them, the Yamnaya probably did the same thing spreading east and west while also bringing thier Indo-European language with then.

Perhaps. Were the Yamnaya spreading by looting and tribute taking or did they just follow their herds to better pasture land as a nomadic existance? They originated on the steppes, yes, but is there evidence they just took what they wanted from everyone in their way?

Also, there is no evidence that the Yamnaya people used horses in battle at all, so they were not "fierce horsemen". Using horses in battle is extremely nerve taxing for the animals and after the initial domestication it took time to breed the type of horses that could take it and learn how to train them for it.